Sounds good, so long as we include products of traditional genetic modification techniques, like selective breeding, and slap a severity degree on there to account for the number of genes edited in the process (or perhaps deviation from a reference genotype?). If consumers want to know, shouldn't they be entitled to know?
I agreed that customers should understand that cauliflower and broccoli are the same plant that was created from one cruciferous mustard herb. However, that’s not really what they are curious about when they’re shopping.
I don't see any problem with that, as long as it doesn't attempt to conflate selective breeding with modern genetic engineering. If it were labeled "selective breeding" or "modified by traditional selective breeding methods" or something, then I think that's entirely clear what it is.
Do people care if they are eating a cow that has been bred for generations to grow faster and have more fat? Is that really the same as genetically modifiying corn so it won’t die when drowned with weed killers and pesticides that are still present on the foods consumers eat?
Conversely, do people care if they are eating a cow that has been genetically modified to grow faster and have more fat? Is that really the same as breeding corn for generations so it won't die when drowned with weed killers and pesticides that are still present on the foods consumers eat?
The difference between your examples is not the genetic modification technique applied, but the result that was achieved. Maybe it would be simpler to just label the precise breed that was used, so consumers can check for themselves which properties they want to avoid.
Well a lot of people are beginning to care if their cows are feed generically modified corn (ie grain fed) vs grass fed. And it’s not so much the gmo but the cows who are fed gmo corn are also loaded up with antibiotics because the pesticide laced grain makes them sick withthout it. And people don’t like eating antibiotic laden beef.
I also think you are blurring the lines between breeding and gmo (ie turning genes on and off) which as a practical matter, what we are talking about is turning off genes in crops, so farmers can you drown their crops and pesticides.
I'm intentionally blurring the lines between breeding and GMOs because if what you really want to avoid is over-use of pesticides and antibiotics, avoiding GMOs is neither sufficient (farmers will add antibiotics to the conventionally bred grain they feed their conventionally bred cows simply because it makes them grow faster) nor necessary (the most lucrative modifications are about pesticide use, but not all of them are) and therefore it would be better to focus energy on the things you really need to care about rather than an unreliable proxy like breeding vs. GMO.
Yes if consumers want to know, they should be able to organize and require disclosures. Otherwise let’s give up take away the regulations requiring nutritional information and ingredients and see how that works out. Should be a blast for people with peanut allergies and allow corporation to start including cheaper preservatives known to cause cancer.
It’s definately one thing to suggest any given consumer can make demands/regulations, but a fair reading and we are talking about an issue that the industry themselves admits large segments want to know so they can make informed buy choices.
